U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-13-2009, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Colorado
4,308 posts, read 11,800,334 times
Reputation: 4425

Advertisements

Not one person has mentioned Santa Fe?! At 7000ft I think it counts as a mountain city.

Denver might look brown right now, but most cities do in the dead of Winter! You should get out here in May when the rains come. Last Spring was gloriously lush and green.

There is no standard definition but usually mountains in the UK are thought of as being a hill of over 2000 feet, in the US anything over 100ft can be called a mountain (seriously!) and in Scotland it has to be over 3000ft.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-13-2009, 04:26 PM
 
Location: SEA/HNL/OC
86 posts, read 308,646 times
Reputation: 54
basically any western city. seattle is only about a 40 minute drive to the mountains. another good mountain area is reno. it is building up big time out there and for being a metro of around 340,000 its got alot going and you would think your in a metro of around 1 mill or 2. and i find it to be pretty affordable in the reno area. and your smack dab in the middle of the sierra nevada. about an hour from lake tahoe and about 20 minutes to mt. rose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2009, 04:34 PM
 
Location: Real America
281 posts, read 539,914 times
Reputation: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABQConvict View Post
There are lots of places around 6,000 feet that are on flat ground. Stop using arbitrary 'above sea-level' figures for defining mountains.

Half of New Mexico is a mile above sea-level (5-6,000ft.) and nearly flat as a pancake.

I would say that at a bare minimum, 1,500 - 2,000 feet of vertical rise (base-to-summit, not ocean-to-summit) may qualify as a mountain, or at least a very big hill.

The mountains outside of Albuquerque rise from 6,000ft. to 10,000 ft. Does that make them bigger than mountains that rise from 1,000ft. to 5,500ft.?
A lot of people on this forum are probably not intelligent enough to reason this, or sadly to subtract those numbers and compare properly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2009, 04:47 PM
 
Location: moving again
4,382 posts, read 15,319,905 times
Reputation: 1589
Quote:
Originally Posted by chilaili View Post
Denver might look brown right now, but most cities do in the dead of Winter! You should get out here in May when the rains come. Last Spring was gloriously lush and green.
Ive been to denver twice in summer, and twice in Winter. All four times it appeared brown. Was it just the two summers i went that were different?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2009, 04:47 PM
 
Location: Beaverland, OR
588 posts, read 2,558,762 times
Reputation: 457
OK, a couple of comments here:
First, there are NO cities of any significant size IN the mountains. Reason: there is very little buildable land IN the mountains; way too much clearing leveling, blasting, fortifying etc. needs to be done to make large-scale development worthwhile. You will, however, find many smaller communities in mountain valleys. And by mountains, I mean real mountains, not little 500 foot hills.

Second, I agree with the above posters regarding altitude above sea level having nothing to do with being in the mountains. It is all about relative changes in altitude. In describing the level of "mountainy-ess", the term prominence is commonly used, which relates the peak of a mountain to the elevation of the surrounding terrain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2009, 10:48 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,900,535 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finger Laker View Post
that's far from true - the highest peak in hennepin county is about 1,000 feet - however, most of the county is fairly flat - the highest peak is about 2,300 feet - most of what is considered the mountains in northern MN don't start until you get into the duluth/lake superior area .... you are looking at a solid 4+ hour drive from the cities up into places like Lutsen

NYS has 10 peaks that break 4,800 feet - AZ has over 20 peaks that break 10,000 feet and many within Maricopa county that are over 4,000 feet (although maricopa county is huge)
1,000 feet is still not dismissable. 2,300 feet or 1,000? which? in any case, most of the Ozarks are then dismissable as most of their peaks are not truly mountainous until you get into Arkansas. Even in the highest point in Missouri about 3,000 feet is the highest it gets. So if you won't consider anything that tall to be mountainous, I guess the Missouri section of the Ozarks is not truly mountainous, and St. Louis and Kansas City do not therefore qualify as metros within mountains. The Boston Mountains of Arkansas are where the Ozarks truly become mountains.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2009, 11:11 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM - Summerlin, NV
3,436 posts, read 5,981,499 times
Reputation: 682
Yesss... for all those smart people out there in the world.. Albuquerque the cities Elevation goes from 5,120in the valley to 5,890 in the heights and upper west side areas.. Plus then again we have the Sandia Mountains over 11,000+ feet.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2009, 01:13 AM
 
717 posts, read 2,495,288 times
Reputation: 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by LovinDecatur View Post
Well, there is that landfill in Pompano Beach.
For me that is just too funny--I went to Florida College of Natural Health in Pompano Beach--which is right across from that landfill--assuming we're talking the same landfill. I used to joke with everyone that "that landfill" was the biggest mountain in Florida.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2009, 01:16 AM
 
717 posts, read 2,495,288 times
Reputation: 438
Asheville, NC--I don't believe it is over 750,000 population, but it sits beautifully in the Blue Ridge Mountains.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2009, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Tri-Cities, TN
149 posts, read 358,612 times
Reputation: 60
Asheville, NC. Tri-Cities, TN. Boone, NC. Not very "metro" but if you want to be "in the mountains" and close enough to civilization you can't beat East TN, Western NC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top